-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I just wanted to bring everyone's attention to Sun bug #6211006 (Default
Java of Linux)
initial bug was posted about a year ago, but a comment was added as
recently as 7 months ago.
I am not sure if some of these statements are lies or just genuine
misunderstandings from the developers. For example, in the comments for
bug #4680244 (RPM does not follow LSB or filesystem hierachy (sic))
;, it seems
clear that the issue is just being avoided (successfully, for over 2
years now). However, in the comments for the more recent bug, there
appears to be some possible genuine misunderstandings of RPM and Linux.
For example, is the bug author not aware that you can create multiple
packages from the same spec file, that you can include documentation
inline, that you can avoid multi-line macros by calling a script...? In
any case, the comment about update-alternatives (missing on Suse) is in
Because rpms are not provided for Mustang yet as far as I know, I guess
there is no way to even find out how this bug can be marked as closed.
My main issue for writing is that bug #4680244 refers people to #6211006
(now closed). But #4680244 has been a top 25 RFE for a long time
(currently it is the #5 most-wanted RFE). I fear, based on the comments
for bug #6211006, that nothing has changed, and now it will only draw
attention away from the JPackage RFE. What's more, the idea of
``forcing'' the most recent jdk to be default is actually a step back,
that is, if I understand correctly. Despite the quoting of some RPM
documentation, the description of the actual proposed solution is left
vague, presumably because whatever they do will not be made public/open.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----